To: Welshman007
HO- LEE-
CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 posted on
05/30/2009 3:58:51 PM PDT by
Mr. K
(physically unabel to proofreed (<---oops))
To: Welshman007
Do they have a link to that post on a White House blog?
Is there an official executive order or other policy that spells this out?
Blatantly unconstitutional.
3 posted on
05/30/2009 4:01:33 PM PDT by
Blogger
(It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. - Ben Franklin)
To: Welshman007
Any person attempting to contact any public official concerning their opinions on any legislation, is an unregistered lobbyist.
4 posted on
05/30/2009 4:02:27 PM PDT by
allmost
To: Welshman007
Private citizens apply for grants and write proposals all the time. Does this mean that having spoken out against Lord Zero excludes you from getting a pell grant?
8 posted on
05/30/2009 4:06:08 PM PDT by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: Welshman007; All
10 posted on
05/30/2009 4:10:27 PM PDT by
allmost
To: Welshman007
Yikes!
From the WH Blog linked above:
Following OMBs review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.
First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.
11 posted on
05/30/2009 4:10:40 PM PDT by
WorkingClassFilth
(Palin/Bachman 2012: Conservative Viagra)
To: Welshman007
Obama has become terrifying. Please someone, make it stop.
12 posted on
05/30/2009 4:11:20 PM PDT by
dforest
To: Welshman007
For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.
“...we will reach contacts...” means what? We will silence all critics? The meaning is very clear, I think, but the terminology is odd. In any case, it’s one more step over the line - one more brick in the wall.
13 posted on
05/30/2009 4:13:55 PM PDT by
ElayneJ
To: Welshman007
My parents, and nearly every government teacher I had in school taught me that the way to attempt to show concern about an issue, or bring about change in government was to contact my elected representatives and voice my concerns. If the Obama administration is not planning on allowing that form of communication about the issues- just how do they expect to hear from us? I know the answer is they don’t want to hear from anyone that doesn’t agree with their plans- but if they close the peaceful process of letting the officials know when we are unhappy then how do they expect some to react? I know there must be unhappy people who will not take this well at all.
18 posted on
05/30/2009 4:22:31 PM PDT by
Tammy8
(Please Support & pray for our Troops; they serve us every day. Veterans are heroes not terrorists!)
To: Welshman007
The way that I read this is that letters or calls to our non-representing representatives will be investigated.
Surely not all of the folks in the government are weak kneed suck ups. Where are the coup makers when ya need them?
21 posted on
05/30/2009 4:28:08 PM PDT by
Big_Harry
( Thank God I am an "Infidel"!)
To: Welshman007
Interesting timing! Bambi is going to the Middle East and will crawl on his knees to the Muzzies and Glenn Beck is going his annual comedy tour and won’t be around to carry the ball and get the word out.
30 posted on
05/30/2009 4:48:00 PM PDT by
WellyP
To: Welshman007
He grinned and smirked the other night, and told an adoring Hollywood writing out checks-—”You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
31 posted on
05/30/2009 4:51:57 PM PDT by
Liz
(When people fear govt, we have tyranny; when govt fears the people, we have freedom.)
To: Welshman007
Where is the “all mighty” ACLU on this?
33 posted on
05/30/2009 4:54:26 PM PDT by
WellyP
To: Welshman007
40 posted on
05/30/2009 5:14:49 PM PDT by
WellyP
To: Welshman007
High Crimes.
Misdemeanors.
Pick one.
Or both.
49 posted on
05/30/2009 5:36:59 PM PDT by
50cal Smokepole
(Effective gun control involves effective recoil management)
To: Welshman007
Amendment 1Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.How in ANYBODY'S interpretation is this legal? The US Supreme Court has applied this to the Executive Branch as well as the Judicial Banch. Yes, all this does RIGHT NOW is to make everybody equal to registered lobbyist but what a jaw-dropping policy released on a late Saturday afternoon. Do you suppose thsy think we won't notice?
61 posted on
05/30/2009 6:14:27 PM PDT by
SES1066
(Cycling to conserve, Conservative to save, Saving to Retire, will Retire to Cycle.)
To: fanfan; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...
77 posted on
06/01/2009 6:51:57 AM PDT by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: Welshman007
Well I just sent written communication o my congressman criticizing this and demanding action.
84 posted on
06/02/2009 2:01:08 AM PDT by
Eagle Eye
(Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson